>Please show me the user who espoused a Laissez-faire trade policy or strict constructionism and was subsequently banned for that expression. THIS! Let me add

>Please show me the user who espoused a Laissez-faire trade policy or strict constructionism and was subsequently banned for that expression. THIS! Let me add on: My argument any conservative who is still tolerable to debate, is this: I don't mind differing viewpoints in philosophy, or in scope of government, per se. I don't want someone banned from twitter for wanting to defund social services, or for thinking public education is a waste of money, for thinking trade unions are bad for citizens. Hell, I'm not even opposed to allowing voices to those who say government has no right to compel people to get vaccines, however horrid the idea. The line, and you know this matai_kolila, is when people post/repeat/retweet lies that originate out of bad science, or out of enemy nation-states, to back up their shitty ideas. Like saying the vaccine is not useful, or saying that COVID in spring of 2020 wasn't a threat, or "a litany of other things". A line exists between legitimate differences in political opinion, and outright bullshit lies, and while you can't be jailed for saying it (literal 1st amendment), private companies have no obligation to help smear the shit.